Comment by BlackFly
5 months ago
The author explains it in the next sentence.
> It’s the “Washington Game” of “official leaks”, disseminating propaganda without being held accountable.
In general, you can spot this kind of propaganda by realizing that the anonymous source is actually promoting the government's position and so isn't actually in danger. I.E. they aren't a whistleblower, they have no reason to fear repercussions.
Wouldn't there be repercussions for discussing an ongoing investigation with a journalist?
Not if people higher in the agency the employee works with are aware of the contact and have blessed it as a useful conduit to establish a narrative.
They are obviously allowed to discuss certain aspects, "We have a suspect," "We have our best detective, Sherlock Holmes, working on the case," "Here is a photograph of our suspect, please contact us if you have any information regarding the suspect."
Then there are other aspects that they would be prohibited from sharing in some legal jurisdictions, that hinge on privacy law (divulging sensitive but irrelevant details regarding the suspects alibi that they learned by interviewing the suspect) or on affecting potential jury members.
Instead they use the idea that they aren't allowed to share any information to just avoid answering questions.